The smartphone succeeded because Apple reinvented a user interface that was intuitive and breathtakingly innovative. In other words, innovation made them useful. NVIDIA hasn't reinvented anything, as gaming consoles weren't really lacking to begin with. As I sad in my above post, people enjoy Android games when they are waiting somewhere or bored with nothing else to do. NVIDIA is trying to reinvent the wheel, a design that already works best in its current form. This is certainly not enough to compete, price-wise, with the PS4. Android games are useful to adults because they already have a platform to play them. Likewise, android games are useful for small children because the user interface is intuitive, giving parents a tool to keep their children occupied with something. NVIDIA and other companies are reading the data wrong on Android/iOS game sales. While many people are buying and playing, they are doing so out of convenience.Reply

Definitely DOA, it's to pricey. Shield has no place in this market. People will stick with their phones and tablets for portable gaming. For consoles, in order of price and performance: Ouya, Wii U, Xbox One and PS4.Reply

For $100 you're getting a Kinect and that all-important HDMI input and the much better Xbox Live service, but regardless I don't think Amazon accepts foodstamps so I wouldn't worry about trying to get either if I was you.Reply

I don't see how the Kinect is a perk; to me it is more of a detriment I have to pay a premium for. Don't get me started on the convoluted DRM and erosion of ownership MS is trying to cram down our throats.

And why is HDMI pass through important? Can't you afford a TV with more than one input? Maybe you should start saving those food-stamps yourself.Reply

I would like for someone to explain, cause I don't get it - why would I want to integrate console with cable service? What would that give me that PIP/POP doesn't already give me? Xbox One won't control my DVR, so I can't pause the TV when someone is interrupting me on Skype... Doesn't eliminate remotes, or slow tuner response, or anything, and it adds an interrupting force -- "I wanna watch TV right now, despite the fact that you're clearly engaged in gaming". It's basically an excuse for MS to gather data on my TV viewing habits with "benefits" no one will clearly explain.Reply

In fact, I'd say Shield is my ideal around-the-house Android device. If I want to watch a movie or something on my Galaxy Nexus or Nexus 7, I have to sit there and hold it up. When I eventually get tired of doing that, I end up having to find a place to prop it up just right so I can still see it and it doesn't fall over. The Shield has none of these problems. I can comfortably sit it down somewhere and not worry about it falling over (or having to use a special case to prop it up).

It's definitely heavier than an Android smartphone, but who cares? I have a smartphone for when I want a phone. Gaming/Streaming on the Shield is just icing on the cake for me.Reply

I do have TVs, but they aren't as flexible as a full Android device. I could get an Apple/Google TV STB, but then I lose portability and flexibility. I can walk around the house with a Shield browsing the web, playing games, or watching videos with a quad-core A15 keeping things snappy.

I guess my use case for it is like a very tiny but powerful Android netbook. When I'm doing most of my real work, I'll be on a larger 15" laptop where a keyboard is definitely a requirement. For media consumption, casual Internet browsing, and gaming, the Shield would be ideal because I would rather have to deal with an onscreen keyboard than an onscreen gamepad.Reply

@aicom: I concur!. Shield will do well and probably kick off the NDS and potentially PS Vita users as well due to its choices in games and versatility as a house-hold walk around device. I stayed away from driving games on Android since without hardware controllers and keys, they are hard to control properly, so Shield fits the portable gaming mode there. Why need a large TV and noisy sound when you can headphone and blast your way into driving simulators!. Laptop and desktop have their purposes and so do smart-phones with large screens. Few would find it ideal to watch a movie on anything smaller than a 7inch tablet, so the Shield has a fit in the usage model. Yes, people still want Xbox for Kinect and PS4 for its awesome games. It is diversity of choices that makes the industry interesting since no one box does it all. And if it does, it does so for one solitary person alone.So why get a large screen TV when I can hdmi from Shield to my 24inch IPS monitor for Shield gaming ?.Reply

Save yourself $329 and buy a decent case for your Nexus 7. It will allow you to watch your movies or other media in a much better fashion than constantly holding the Shield at the right angle, which based on the design I played with at CES had very limited panel movement. Also, once the fan kicks in your hands will appreciate a Nexus 7 in a case. Reply

The PS Vita costs $249 and already has a hard time selling.The PS4 will be only $50 more than the Shield.I think people will be much more likely to spend $349 on a smartphone, a tablet or a PS4/Xbox One.Reply

Not only that, but isn't the PS Vita supposed to be able to stream all of the PS4 games? And to me that is the Shield's biggest selling point, is streaming full games. So if Sony can pull it off with the cheaper Vita, then they might take a lot of the wind from Nvidia's sails. Reply

Yes it will stream them. Its actually a requirement that EVERY game that doesnt need additional accessories (PS move, PS eye) must support streaming to Vita. If its not necessary to have the vita and the ps4 on the same network, this will be absolutely killerReply

Yes, I know that Vita will be able to do Remote Gaming from a PS4 (It already is a feature with PS3, although it's never worked very well). I was asking if it will be able to stream a user's library of PC/Steam games that they already own like Battlefield, COD, and upcoming PC Unreal Engine 4 games that are coming. From what everyone has said, a GTX 680 and now GTX 780 outperforms a PS4 and the prices come down really quickly.Reply

Will the Vita be able to be a streaming client for PC games like Shield? From what I saw at E3, the ability to play the high-end Android Tegra games (many shown proved that Shield has more horsepower than Vita), AND all of the other Android games, AND be able to stream my PC games/Steam library to the internal display OR a TV connected to Shield seem like the big selling points. The fact that the Shield-enhanced games on Google Play are only around 5-bucks instead of 30 or 40 make the $350 not so bad, too.Reply

First handheld with a fan? Doesn't bode well for Tegra 4 in a phone.Also, the screen's bezel is huge, it must be the bulkiest looking handheld of recent times, the price is too high, and the kicker is the NVIDIA GPU lock in.

Driving 4 A15s hard (1.9 GHz) and a relatively big GPU does consume power. You can reduce that power at the expense of performance (dynamic downclocking) and still cool passively, but nVidia chose not to do so for a gaming device.Reply

I continue to be tempted as the hardware's awesome...but I have no idea what I'd do with it. Even this device running iOS would be more tempting.

I need something running real Windows, or I'll stick to my Vita (and 3DS). Even Vita may not be as powerful (at least I assume this thing's GPU beats Vita's 4 PowerVR chips) but when you've got real developers making real games that they actually sell in stores...Reply

I wish nVidia would release the Shield game streaming option to any device that can decode mp4. Or hell, even just laptops with nVidia GPU's would be better than me having to buy a $350 Android device with a 5" screen just to get game streaming.

I'd much rather put that money toward an Ultrabook and stream to it from my gaming PC.Reply

Apologies, but people bashing the price of Shield are unreasonable. It is a great value when you consider:

1. NVIDIA makes no money on games. Android games cost $0-10, while XBOX or PS games cost $60. Now factor into the price of the device the cost of 10 games and then compare end prices.

2. Shield gives you more hardware than a high-end phone, yet costs less. Contrast the ~$500 unsubsidized phone price with $350 of the Shield. It doesn't have a modem, but comes with a controller and a fan! :PReply

Most of your points are valid, but the problem is, no matter how impressive the hardware is or how thin the margins are for Nvidia, the vast majority of consumers could care less. I wonder how many self proclaimed "gamers" even know what an SoC is....they're just going to see a high price tag, limited titles, and a bulky device. I think the only way this platform can take off is if initial reviews are stellar and the platform gets more publicity.

Also, I may have missed this part in one of the articles, but what about battery life? can Tegra 4 handle 3 hours of uninterrupted play? I would imagine it will get pretty hot if playing while plugged in. (is the battery removable btw?)

I wouldn't compare it to an unlocked phone...it's just too different. Modem/baseband aside, wouldn't it be awkward using the touchscreen keyboard or playing traditional touchscreen games?

In terms of relative price point, I'd say the Shield compares to the Razor gaming notebooks, except margins are probably much worse. Pushing the limits of "value" for gamers is a risky strategy. Who knows how astronomical R&D costs were...I honestly don't think this was a wise endeavor for Nvidia in the short term, but someone had to come out with a first gen device of this kind eventually.Reply

Does the remote play stuff only work with certain games? What about games that are compatible with Steam Big Picture mode? I know Borderlands 2 works, but what about something like Bioshock Infinite, which has full controller support?Reply

Based on NVIDIA's previous statements it should work with anything that offers controller support. That's most action and driving games these days, though you're not going to be playing strategy games this way.Reply

I'm surprised at how many "DOA" and "this thing will never succeed" comments I see. This is not a mainstream device and Nvidia knows that. It's not competing with the Nintendo DS or the PS Vita. They know they won't see a whole lotta sales with this thing. They made it for 2 reasons:

1. A reference device to show off Tegra 4. They want to become a first-tier player in the smartphone/table soC game and this gives them a way to show off Tegra and hopefully garner some developer support.

2. A device to excite their base of serious PC gamers and fans. (this probably being the far lesser of the 2 reasons)

With all that in mind, I'm actually pretty excited. Yes it's pricey, but the hardware seems great and - as others have said - this could serve nicely as a video streaming device when it's not playing games. Reply

These should sell well, even vs. Vita ($50 less) or 3DS (100 less). They do so much more already. NV can really kick things off by making a gaming announcement. Say something like MS with the 1B in games. But instead say 100mil per year for 20 exclusives (5mil per game should net AAA quality games) for the next 4yrs guaranteed thus showing they will make sure you get top quality games (not much more than Intel's free payment each year - just ONE of those payments covers 300mil). It should be easy to recoup that and you can sell them on PC a year later or two later with physx/cuda etc support so they sell more gpus on pc...LOL. Considering even how Vita and 3DS have sold (7mil and 40mil units), just selling a million of each game to shield owners at 5bucks nets a break even on a 5mil dev game and kills handhelds totally. But then Square Enix and EA charge $15-20 for their AAA games on mobile, so you could easily charge $10-15 which is still short of Vita/3DS at $20-36 for their games.

Wiiu and 3DS games are estimated to cost 600K-2mil per game for dev. Clearly NV could afford to fund a LOT of great experiences to sell us this 720p handheld that dwarfs 3DS/Vita resolutions, function and power. Not to mention hdmi out to tv so no need for consoles, browsing on TV (it uses android and virtual keyboards after all - along with all android apps/games). They could also allow the exclusive games on T4i/T4 devices of course so even more sales potential. If they make great games they sell themselves at $10. The total of T4/T4i devices will be over 10mil no doubt so only selling to 1/10 of the audience gets your money back on each game easily and promotes the platform just as MS is attempting to do with Xbox1. It should be easy to promote them to NV gpu gamers a year or two later after each one comes out if you haven't recovered the dev money on a game.

NV sold 9.5mil discrete cards this Q (out of 14.8mil), so there's plenty of people buying new cards each quarter even as NV exclusives. They can do it many ways but the point is you can get your game dev money back easily between mobile and pc. Since they'd likely run on AMD hardware on PC, charge NV customers $10 for the game and $15 to AMD people on PC...LOL. Torchlight 2 sold 1mil units before Jan1 2013 (just 3 months), so you can easily sell games at $20 to pc users if they're quality. NV has no EA/Activision etc overhead and could just add these people under their umbrella to pump out great games cheaply. Tegrazone & googleplay are all you need for advertisement. They already sort of help by lending engineers to devs to help push features, but that isn't enough IMHO. Put some real money behind the games.

Apple should have done the same thing 3yrs ago and we might not even be seeing shield, ouya, wikipad, gamepop etc etc as they could have owned this whole market by putting out 100 AAA games each year as exclusive to apple only! I mean even 500mil/yr for 10yrs of games is only 5B. Apple has 140B. This is the most wasted opportunity I've seen in years. They have a few hundred million to sell to that have very good gpus and surely will add more with the next ipad/iphone. They could have a 300 AAA game catalog already in the books and building more. Heck they could have put out a console this year to add more fuel to APPLE ONLY gaming. They are STUPID. I'm no apple fan but I would have destroyed everyone in gaming with 140B...LOL. Think about say 1B a year for the next 5yrs even. That's a crapload of games even at 10mil per game that's 100 games a year and those are expensive by today's standards. The witcher 1 & 2 were made for ~7mil each and they were both AAA. Torchlights were made for ~2mil each I think, and again seriously fun. Look at all the kickstarter's being done for 4mil or less and a lot of puzzle/adventure point click crap is cheap to make, but again has an audience - The walking dead 5eps would bore me to death but someone loves it...LOL.

The person who dominates the games will win the next war. Which is why Vita/Wiiu is having such a hard time - no games (or dev support), and 3DS is losing lots of support to as everyone goes to mobile. Apple could have ruled by now, and if NV is listening MAKE YOUR MOVE NOW! A few hundred million (they have 3.7B and intel pays them yearly to 2016) can change the value of your console, further push NV gpu's and at worst probably break even or make money on the games. It wouldn't be long and you're making a ton on the games due to a larger base between phones/tablets and rev2 or rev3 with later tegras in shield (T5/T6).

MS is having to do this 1B into gaming as a defense move due to DRM scandal, used games scandal, 24hr check-in etc. NV or Apple (Qcom too) can all do it from OFFENSIVE positions.

Shield is about as DOA a product as Titan which still is basically selling every one they make at $1000. Anyone thinking these won't sell decent vs. 3ds/vita are sadly mistaken. Running vanilla android was brilliant (and surely makes Google happy vs. forking and ticking them off) with access to everything android out of the box. Some stuff may need tweaks but it shouldn't be tough to get most stuff running fine to keep users very busy. Myself, Maxwell first, maybe shield T5 then next June :)Reply

I don't get why you're all complaining about the cost. This isn't competing with the PS4 or Xbox 1 or Ouya. This is competing with tablets, the iPad, the Samsung ones. It's a tablet designed around gaming and priced lower than a iPad. From that point of view it's a really good deal. Gaming on the go with PC desktop streaming while at home.Reply

The mobility is the most desirable feature. This is on my list of toys to own in 2013 along with Xbox One. The price point is a little disappointing, but I guess I could dish out the additional amount in exchange for portability and mobility. The controller looks really comfortable, but I have to try it before I concur. Reply

The screen definitely looks too small. If they could squeeze a 7" 1080p display in there for Shield 2.0 next year, that would be great. But I also think $300 is a bit too much. They need to get it closer to $200. At $200 it would sell in millions, because it would be much better value than a PS Vita, too.Reply

I like NVIDIA and have even had a slight bias towards NVIDIA GPUs (probably because of extremely poor experiences with ATI a long time ago). However, this NVIDIA Shield has absolutely no appeal to me. Android games can be fun when you are killing time in a waiting room, or to keep your children occupied in the car. However, nobody is going to lug around a large "portable" console with them to be useful when waiting around and kids enjoy tablets because they are so intuitive with the touch user interfaces. If NVIDIA initially sells a few of these units, it will be for novelty purposes only and I'm betting that this will quickly fail as soon as the novelty wears off and people realize they are useless.Reply